Sophia in 't Veld, rapporteur. – Madam President, I am very pleased that we are having this debate here today because we have travelled quite a road since we decided a year and a half ago to draw up this legislative initiative report. First of all, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and my co-rapporteur on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO). These are not just hollow words; I think that we have had a very fruitful and constructive cooperation, and the result of that cooperation is before you and will, hopefully, command a large majority when we vote later today. I note that the only party that is actively campaigning against my report is the Front National, which I find reassuring in a way.

The European Commission will today present its working programme for 2017. Commissioner Timmermans always says that the European Commission has to be big on big things, and I very much agree with that. But I do think that democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are a big thing.

We Europeans have something to be proud of: we have been leading for many decades in the area of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, so we have a heritage that we can be proud of. So let us now take the opportunity to further deepen and strengthen that culture of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the European Union as a whole, because the EU is more than the sum of Member States. Democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (or DRF, if I may coin a new abbreviation in EU jargon) is key to the functioning of the European Union. It is key to policy areas like police and justice cooperation, and asylum and refugee policies, but also the internal market and, as we have seen recently, international trade.

We are all aware of the so-called Copenhagen dilemma. In other words, when a country wants to join the European Union, it has to meet the highest standards – but Member States of the European Union cannot be held to those standards. We do not really have sufficient means to enforce our standards of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, but we do feel that the need for a mechanism for upholding DRF is growing. One of our colleagues, Viviane Reding, who was a Commissioner at the time for that purpose, took the first steps to the creation of the rule of law framework, which is now triggered by Mr Timmermans. We have seen the creation of the Rule of Law Dialogue in the Council, the creation of the friends of the Rule of Law Group in the European Council, and Mr Timmermans, when you were still a Minister of foreign affairs in the Netherlands, you yourself called for the creation of a rule of law mechanism.

We have the European Commission Rule of Law Framework, and that is very important. I think it is very good that you have triggered it in the case of Poland, but that same case also illustrates the weaknesses and the shortcomings of that mechanism, and therefore the European Parliament has proposed the DRF pact. The principles, I hope, will find their way into the proposals that the Commission will, hopefully, put forward. The principles are that the pact, or the mechanism, should be applied to all Member States equally. They should all be assessed on the same basis, and also the EU institutions. It should be a permanent mechanism and not crisis-driven, as we have now in the case of Poland.

There should be ongoing monitoring. It should be objective, evidence-based, and not politically motivated, and it should also be building on existing instruments and be realised under the current treaties. Finally, our mechanism foresees close involvement of the national parliaments.

I am very much looking forward to the debate, and I very much hope that the European Commission will join the big majority in the European Parliament and come forward with proposals that build on the report that we will adopt today.

Frans Timmermans,First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank Parliament for today’s debate on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. In particular, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Sophia in ‘t Veld, for her personal engagement and the important work that has gone into the preparation of the report. She is passionate about this and we could see her passion reflected in the report.

We can all fully agree on the objective underlying the report, which is to ensure that our common values and rules are respected and, if need be, enforced. The key issue for discussion is not about the objective itself but about the best means to achieve that objective. There is much in the report I can fully agree with, such as the suggestion to follow an inclusive approach with all stakeholders – EU institutions, Member States and civil society.

The idea of an interparliamentary dialogue between the European Parliament and national parliaments equally merits support. National parliaments are involved in many of the rule of law related problems that we witness in Member States today. We need to work towards a common understanding of our values at national and at European level. This interparliamentary dialogue could, as a first step, lead to a discussion on the different options and means which are currently on the table to ensure that our common values are respected and enforced. The Commission and I assume that the Council will want to be involved as well.

However, there are also a number of points in the report on which I have questions and I would very much like to hear your views. For instance, I have questions about the need and the feasibility of an annual report and a policy cycle prepared by a committee of experts. I also have doubts about the feasibility of an interinstitutional agreement on this matter. Some elements of the proposed approach, such as the central role attributed to an independent expert panel in the proposed pact, also raise questions of legality, institutional legitimacy and accountability. Moreover, from a practical and political point of view, it may also be very difficult to find common ground on such an interinstitutional agreement between all the parties concerned.

I hope we can all agree that a long institutional debate on new mechanisms is the last thing we need right now. We have a range of existing tools and actors that already provide a set of complementary and effective means to address rule of law issues. Duplication of existing mechanisms is something I think we should avoid, and if I understood Mrs in ‘t Veld’s introduction correctly, this is something she wants to avoid as well. As you know, in March 2014 the Commission adopted a rule of law framework. We are currently applying this framework in the case of Poland for the first time. Mrs in ‘t Veld referred to this.

The Commission takes protecting the rule of law very seriously. We are grateful for the support Parliament has shown in its resolution of 14 September and we need that support if we are to be successful in our approach. The Commission also organises an annual fundamental rights colloquium, involving European institutions, Member States, international organisations and civil society. This year the colloquium will take place on 17 and 18 November and will be devoted to the topic of media pluralism and democracy.

As you know – and as Mrs in ‘t Veld mentioned – in December 2014 the Council established a rule of law dialogue to debate rule of law issues and – as Mrs in ‘t Veld has said – in a previous capacity as Foreign Minister, I was one of the people who took the initiative, together with the Foreign Ministers of Denmark, Germany and Finland. We also have a number of other actors, apart from the Council – the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission, the Agency for Fundamental Rights and a host of NGOs active in the field of fundamental rights. They all contribute to the monitoring of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in our Member States. We should make their contributions stronger. We should also make the best possible use of these existing instruments, evaluate them, look where we see deficiencies and then take steps towards the creation of a new mechanism – only after that evaluation, I would say.

I very much look forward to hearing your views. Let me assure you that the Commission will examine your request for a proposal very carefully, in line with Article 225 of the Treaty, and give this report the serious response it deserves. But let me also stress again what I think is crucial. We need to avoid division around our common values as clearly set out in the Treaties and work with our various partners to build a consensus. Protecting the fundamental values of the Union is a collective responsibility of all institutions. The existing treaties give us the tools so let us use them. At the end of the day, this is a very political process.

But let me repeat here what I said last week in the committee discussion we had on that in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). Without full integral application of the rule of law across the European Union, the European Union is doomed because the rule of law is the fundament upon which this construction is built. If we disregard the rule of law, there is nothing to keep the European Union together, other than naked power politics. That will be to the detriment of the smaller, of the minorities, of the weaker, and of the individual citizens. We cannot let that happen.

György Schöpflin, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. – Madam President, thank you Vice-President and also incidentally very much my thanks to the rapporteur and everybody else who has worked very hard on this dossier. A human rights mechanism has three necessary conditions to meet if it is to be successful, and this is what I would very much like to see myself.

First of all, it must have a legal base, giving it immunity from political interference. It follows that this mechanism will only acquire legitimacy if it is not used to target Member States in order to punish them.

Secondly, the mechanism must be completely even-handed as between Member States. The slightest hint of different treatment will delegitimise it, so no cherry picking, no opportunistic targeting. This, of course, will require continuous monitoring.

The third is consistency of implementation, but here a balance has to be struck between subsidiarity and all European practice. Too much of the latter runs a danger of centralisation – the Jacobin temptation. If the Jacobins get their way, there is no chance at all that the rule-of-law culture will take root in the European Union.

Frank Engel, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, I would like to start by expressing my sincere thanks to the rapporteur Mrs in ’t Veld for a remarkably inclusive approach that she has had throughout this process and which has allowed maximum convergence throughout this Parliament on a text which I believe is fundamental.

It is even more fundamental if I hear the First Vice-President of the Commission, Mr Timmermans, telling us that there may be difficulty to find common ground on the topic throughout the institutions. That to me is the best proof that this is exactly the moment in which we need to kick off a process of engagement towards finding a veritable and a true European logic of governance, because we may not be there yet, as we discover far too often when we see governance trends in certain European countries, as has been the case over the last month and as may be the case again.

Who, at the end of the day, is going to protect us from what happened in the inter-war period – when one country after another, for reasons of their own, drifted off into extremely problematic governmental orientations – with what we have now. With the generalised unanimity requirement that is on the table to engage whatsoever with respect to any sort of state, we would be doing essentially nothing and that would be dramatic.

It would be dramatic as a sign to the millions of Europeans who nowadays look towards Europe and to this House as the only – the only – buoy of stability; if it is about guaranteeing that elections in the future change policies, yes, but not the nature of their state. This is something that is aimed at ensuring continuity of statehood, of institutions, of impartiality of state against electoral result, if need be, and against those who believe that saving the Occident is more important than saving their own citizens from arbitrary governance.

This is a necessary mechanism. This is something that we can now embrace. This is something that we now should embrace and this is something for which Parliament has taken time to converge towards but it is good that it has finally done so.

Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, events in Hungary, Poland and some other Member States highlighted a significant loophole in the legal system of the European Union. There are no effective tools for gradual sanctioning the breaches of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. Parliament has several times requested to change this situation, as in the Tavares report and the Ferrara report and on some other occasions as well, so it is clear that it is high time to create a new mechanism. But this is effective only if there is no room to apply them in a politically biased way. This has actually already happened. The Commission has started a rule of law procedure against Poland but failed to do the same against the Hungarian Government, although its action is gradually damaging democracy and political freedoms. Apparently it seems that political affiliation matters. Law and Justice in Poland are not members of the European People’s Party, but Hungarian Fidesz is. Double standards clearly exist. This must be stopped. Any measures will make sense only if the political groups stop denying the obvious and stop protecting the unprotectable.

Gerard Batten (EFDD). – Madam President, this report calls for an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. It is an own-initiative report – an MEP’s wish list. It has no legislative effect; it is just hot air. It was pointless to write and equally pointless to debate. However, Britain needs no lessons in democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. Britain had a democracy founded on parliamentary government that evolved over 800 years. Our democracy was undermined by transferring supremacy of law-making from our parliament to the European Union. We had the rule of law – our law – which evolved over a thousand years. The rule of our law was undermined by EU law and the supremacy of the European Court of Justice. We had fundamental rights, established under such things as Magna Carta, the common law, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights. Our rights and freedoms are being destroyed by such things as the European Arrest Warrant that allows British citizens to be arrested, extradited and imprisoned in corrupt foreign countries merely on the basis of vague accusations without any supporting evidence. If the British people want their democracy, the rule of their law and their fundamental rights back, then we must leave the European Union as quickly as possible. Brexit means now, not in two and a half years’ time or longer.

Tanja Fajon (S&D). – Madam President, first of all I would also like to thank Sophia in ‘t Veld and the other shadow rapporteurs. I agree with the First Vice-President that it is a very political process, and the rule of law is the key fundamental framework of our Union. If that fails, our democracy is seriously threatened.

I very much agree with my colleagues that we need to kick off by finding institutional agreement on establishing a mechanism like this that is in fact a manifestation of our common European values. Let me remind you, Commissioner Timmermans, that in 2013 you, together with your colleagues, wrote to the former President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, asking him for the establishment of such a mechanism that would protect our fundamental values. We have today an excellent chance to make it happen. In general, I do not support the idea of duplicating mechanisms with tools that already exist, but I do not feel that today we have such mechanisms that are effective.

Looking at the situation in Poland or Hungary, socialists and democrats have for a long time been pushing for the establishment of a democracy scoreboard. Today we ask the accession countries to meet the Copenhagen criteria, but the Member States can simply do whatever they want. So I very much support the idea of establishing such a mechanism on democracy that would stop various violations of the treaties, for example freedom of the media, which we heard mentioned several times. So this mechanism is really needed.

Diane James (EFDD). – Madam President, all too often what the EU has in mind is either obscure or opaque, ensuring that the media and Member States’ citizens are left in the dark. Let us be absolutely clear about what we are talking about this morning. We are talking about a report that seeks to establish a group of so-called independent experts who will monitor Member States to ensure that they are upholding the values of EU Treaties. Seemingly there is nothing wrong with that, but in fact there is – and there is plenty.

Let me go through what is wrong. There is absolutely no legal nor Treaty mandate to establish this mechanism. The EU has therefore absolutely no right even to propose it. Thirdly, there is nothing that can be cited to justify or validate such a mechanism, and the timing should make everybody suspicious. Call me cynical, but might it just be a knee—jerk reaction to circumstances in Poland and Hungary – two Member States – probably two out of 28 that would like to do much the same – which are, quite rightly, exercising their sovereign right to curtail EU influence and control in the areas of democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights? That is what sovereign nationhood is all about. If the European Union really wishes to add more substance to accusations of covert federalism and emerging Big Brother statehood, then go ahead, but there is absolutely no way anybody who believes in democracy should support this.

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – Mr President, everyone complains about Hungary and Poland, but the real issue is whether this House and the EU are ready to fight for fundamental rights in Western Europe as well.

In Spain the Constitutional Court is led by an ex-member of the Popular Party. Judicial independence is non—existent. In Spain, under Popular Party governments, newspapers have been closed and political parties have been banned. The former President of Catalonia, Artur Mas, is now facing a political trial for organising a symbolic vote on independence three years ago. And yesterday a pro—independence member of the town hall from Vic, Joan Coma, was sentenced to eight years in jail by Spanish justice merely because of a pro-Catalan independence speech in his town hall.

I hope that the mechanism will be established and that the EU will react to defend democracy everywhere in the EU.

Frans Timmermans,First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I just want to make a few points. First of all, the realisation that free societies rest on a tripod – democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights – pre-dates the European Union. It pre-dates the Treaty of Rome and is something that free European societies at the end of the 1940s came to realise as a consequence of what they had seen happening before and during the war, when democracy was used to impose tyranny and the rule of law was used to take away fundamental rights from individuals. So what I want to say is that when we talk about democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, we should make it very clear that this is what free societies are based upon, having been established at the end of the 1940s within the Council of Europe, when the Iberian Peninsula was suffering under dictatorship, the Iron Curtain was coming down and half of Europe was under Communist oppression. That is when free societies realised that we need to avoid the mistakes of the past and bring freedom to everyone – the tripod of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. And whenever one tries to use democracy against the rule of law or against fundamental rights or vice versa things will go wrong: that, I believe, is the basis upon which we should found our work.

Because at the end of the day everyone in Europe belongs to a minority. Whether you are a minority or a majority depends only on your perspective. It depends on where you stand. At the end of the day in a democracy you may be in the majority today, but you will be in the minority tomorrow if the voters so decide. And if you use the majority to marginalise or push away the rights of the minority you might receive the same treatment yourself after the next round of elections. So we have a fundamental reason to fight for this tripod and the need is going to be permanent, because there are always going to be challenges.

Now, what do we need to reach that goal? That is the question that we need to discuss today. I have listened very carefully to all the points made today. After your vote we in the Commission will think about how we will react, but let me make it very clear that, to my mind, the goals which we share should not dictate the means that we use to reach those goals. We will be constructive in discussing the report with the European Parliament, but, speaking as a pragmatic man, I believe that we should work towards a position in which we can make sure that fundamental rights, the rule of law and democracy are protected everywhere in the European Union and look for the best means to do that.

I say this also against the backdrop of xenophobic incidents increasing across the European Union – east, west, north and south. I say this in a public debate which is turning sour in quite a number of Member States, putting minorities, and sometimes even majorities, on the receiving end. Women and political, ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities are all under pressure today, and we have the obligation to make sure that everyone’s rights are protected.

Sophia in 't Veld, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank my colleagues for a very interesting debate and for all the support. I would just like to briefly say to that side of the House (which has largely disappeared incidentally): I have heard a lot of hysterical language about dictatorships and imposing values, tyranny, submission, treason. I would just like to point out that 28 countries decided to join the European Union voluntarily.

They signed up to the Treaties voluntarily and the Treaties include Article 2. For those who have read the articles: Article 1 in the Treaties basically says ‘Hello, everybody’ and then Article 2 is about what we are all about as a European Union – a community of values.

The irony is that we have endowed the European Union with the instruments to enforce all the other policy areas: competition policies, police and justice cooperation, foreign policies, etc. But our core values are not protected by instruments that are sufficiently strong to make sure that the values are upheld throughout the European Union.

I very much concur with what Commissioner Timmermans just said: it is all about the objectives and not so much about the means. But I do hope that I misunderstood when I thought I heard you say in your initial presentation, Commissioner Timmermans, that you think that the existing tools are sufficient, because there I disagree and I think that has been echoed by everybody in the House.

I think that we all expect that the mechanism you have triggered against the Polish Government is not, unfortunately, going to lead to an improvement in the situation in Poland. Nobody expects that by the end of this week the Polish Government is going to say: we are going to follow up on your recommendations. I would have hoped that they would, but they are probably not going to do that.

So we do need a mechanism that has a preventative arm that applies to all the Member States. I think that is really a key principle. Also, in response to your question: yes, I do think it should be on a regular, preferably an annual, basis and not be incident-driven, because if it is incident-driven then there is the inherent risk that decisions to intervene will be politically motivated, and we want to avoid that.

One final remark about the panel of independent experts: I hear people expressing concerns about this. I would recommend people read the text because it is very clear that the lead is with the Commission. The Commission will adopt the annual report but it will do so in consultation with the panel of independent experts that will be partly nominated by the Member States and partly by this Parliament.

Finally, I would like to remind the Commission, and colleagues, that it is not as if we are reinventing the wheel. We already have the justice scoreboard, the corruption report, the corruption and verification mechanism (CVM) for Bulgaria and Romania, the media pluralism monitor, the fundamental rights report, the reports on access to documents, the Schengen evaluations, etc. These mechanisms also include panels of independent experts and country-specific recommendations, so we are not inventing something new.

I look forward to the Commission’s proposal. I hope that we can have a constructive dialogue, as we have had inside this House in the political groups, the same dialogue between the institutions and come up with something that will really serve democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights throughout the European Union.

Ivan Korčok,President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, before I start I would like to say how much we are looking forward to cooperating with the Commissioner. It is the first occasion that we have had to meet here in the margins of this important debate. Commissioner, your portfolio is extremely important for the Security Union and we, as a Presidency, are very keen to work together with you.

Honourable Members, many thanks for giving us the opportunity to express the views of the Council on this very important issue. I would like to start by recalling what the honourable Members Hohlmeier and Gonzales Pons have mentioned recently, to the effect that we have managed within the last year ‘remarkable legislative progress’ to prevent and fight terrorism. I think this is very important and should be recognised right at the beginning.

But, of course, the urgency of putting in place measures to prevent and fight terrorism, while maintaining an open and free society, has only increased following the many attacks which have taken place since then. Even if security is, let me say, primarily the Member States’ responsibility, political expectations for the EU and its citizens to deliver and ensure security are very high.

The first point I want to make is on information exchange. The Council is highly committed to implementing the renewed Internal Security Strategy for the years 2015-2020, and one of the most important elements here is improving information exchange and accessibility, especially by ensuring the interoperability of different information systems.

The Council in June endorsed a roadmap on information exchange and information management in the Justice and Home Affairs area, and will regularly review its implementation. It contains 50 practical short and medium-term actions and long-term orientations. Their aim is to make sure that practitioners, such as policemen and border guards, have speedy and effective access to high quality information. A number of actions of the roadmap will be taken forward by the High—Level Expert Group on information systems and interoperability. This group will play an important role in developing a long-term vision for the future architecture of the EU information systems and databases by ensuring their interoperability.

While of course we should never be complacent, I daresay that there has been substantive progress over the past year. Let me give you two examples: (1) via the Europol Information System (EIS) and (2) the Schengen Information System. In the EIS, the number of terrorism-related objects has increased in the third quarter of this year by 20% (to a total of over 13 000) in comparison to the second quarter. The number of searches, and this is important, conducted in the EIS in the third quarter sets a new record, and brings the total number of searches performed this year to more than one million for the first time in the history of the system.

As for the Schengen Information System (SIS), the number of alerts on persons under Article 36 of the SIS II Decision has nearly doubled since 2014, reaching almost 90 000. As regards information sharing by the security services, Europol has created the possibility for counter-terrorism units to communicate bilaterally using the secure information exchange network, SIENA, and is now upgrading it to EU confidential level.

The European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC) has been operational since January 2016 and is also contributing to stepping up information-sharing and operational cooperation.

The second point, on radicalisation: this must obviously be addressed, primarily by the Member States, but also, in order to be effective, by coordinated support at European level in accordance with the Treaties. As a follow-up to the Commission communication of June this year, the Education Council that will take place in November will adopt conclusions on preventing radicalisation leading to violent extremism. These conclusions reflect the broad approach that we need to take and highlight also the preventive role of education and youth work. Another important conference will be organised by the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN), in cooperation with the Commission, and it will also take place in November.

Furthermore, it is crucial to focus on online initiatives and the work of the Europol Internet Referral Unit. Cooperation with service providers has proven successful, and approximately 90% of the content considered illegal was taken down by service providers. We look forward to the new initiatives of the EU Internet Forum to be launched by the Commission in December this year. In order to fight online radicalisation, nevertheless, we need to build the most effective partnership between government and industry.

I would like to mention two more issues very quickly – I am aware of the time limit, but it is important. First, on the victims of terrorism, the recent terrorist attacks have once again reminded us that our emergency services must be prepared for rapid and efficient interventions in very difficult security conditions. This requires enhanced cooperation between different actors at national and EU level, including emergency and security services.

Terrorist attacks are likely to cause a high number of victims requiring very specific medical treatment, not to mention psychological support which has to be provided, not only to survivors, but also to the families of the victims and to the witnesses of the events. I could continue on this but I would like to say we are paying attention also to the consequence management of terrorist attacks. Let me remind you of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism which was adopted in 2013.

Secondly, and this is my last point, on irregular migratory flows, which is also very important in the current context of the migratory crisis, the Council has, in particular via the Integrated Political Crisis Response mechanism, worked intensively with relevant Member States, the Commission and EU agencies, to ensure an adequate response to the possible abuse of refugee and migration routes by terrorists. Of course, the most important points when it comes to the current routes are in Greece and Italy, but there are different types of security checks going on here and they are conducted in the various places on the work floor in these hotspots.

One of the priorities in this area was the recruitment by Europol of national police officers who will be deployed together with Europol officers in the Greek hotspots, and also in Italy, as soon as possible.

Mr President, I took a bit longer than expected, but this is a very complex issue. There are many more important elements that should be mentioned, but this was the most important part, which I wanted to share with you.

Julian King,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am very glad to be here this morning to discuss the first of a series of monthly reports on progress towards building an effective and sustainable Security Union. I hope this will become a regular fixture for future plenaries. My colleague Dimitris Avramopoulos would very much like to have been here this morning, but he sends his apologies.

So this first report looks at the period from the Commission’s April 2016 communication, which also launched the Security Union, up until October, and it focuses on home and justice areas in particular. In future, the scope of these reports will be broader, given the cross-cutting nature of the Security Union, which is, as you know, an initiative that encompasses a broad swathe of the Commission’s work. Indeed it brings together more than 20 directorates-general. President Juncker’s idea when he created this role was to drive the delivery of work in this vital area, and I will work with my colleagues across the Commission to make sure that we deliver what we have all signed up to, to plug the gaps, and to make sure that our response keeps pace with the constantly shifting threats we face.

We need to act simultaneously on two fronts. First, to close down the space in which terrorists and criminals operate and to deny them the means they use – money, munitions, movement. This also includes working on prevention of terrorism and working to counter radicalisation. Second, to build our resilience, to strengthen our information systems by making them more joined up, and to reinforce our critical infrastructure, particularly our transport, energy and cyber security, which are too often targeted by terrorists and criminals. As I have said before, all of this only works if it respects our fundamental rights and values. These are the very rights and values that terrorists in particular are setting out to destroy.

In terms of the fight against terrorism, I welcome the commitment of this Parliament to conclude as soon as possible the negotiations on the counter-terrorism directive. I would like also to assure you of my strong support for your efforts to finalise the work on systematic checks on external borders. It is important that we do this, given the risks associated with the possible return of foreign fighters.

As regards the means used to support terrorism, I am glad the co-legislators have started work on the amendments to the Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. The majority of measures in the action plan against the illicit trafficking and use of firearms and explosives have now been implemented or are in hand. The implementing regulation on firearms deactivation entered into force in April this year and will cut substantially access for terrorists to such firearms. But I wanted to add that the co-legislators now urgently need to close the remaining gaps in the trilogue, which I think is taking place today, to reach agreement on the revision of the Firearms Directive, to take military assault weapons off the streets. It is nearly a year since the Paris attacks. The Commission produced its proposals rapidly and they have been thoroughly discussed. Our citizens will simply not understand a continuing delay.

Fighting terrorism also means tackling the causes of terrorism, including radicalisation. We have to fight ideas with ideas. Identifying and taking down terrorist propaganda is vital, as has been said, but developing persuasive counter-narratives that offer a clear alternative vision, backed up by opportunities and incentives, is the only way of tapping into the same idealism which radicalisation exploits. We have to target the people the recruiters are targeting and offer them a different and better path. That means education, employment and inclusion. The Commission is helping – funding work on counter-narratives through the RAN, through targeted use of Erasmus+, the Youth Guarantee, and financial support through the European Social Fund.

Tackling this challenge takes time. I visited Mechelen, near Brussels, earlier earlier this month, a place with similar demographics to Molenbeek – but in the case of Mechelen there are no foreign fighters. This reflects 15 years’ worth of investment led by grassroot initiatives, combining a tough approach on law enforcement with sustained work on prevention and deradicalisation that has given young people a greater sense of self-worth and a greater sense of their community. I am happy that this long-term sustained approach is shared by Parliament, and I am looking forward to contributing to the debate which the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) will hold on combating radicalisation later in November.

As well as taking the fight to terrorists and criminals, we need to build our resilience, to protect our citizens and our society, to strengthen our information systems, as has been mentioned, to reinforce our infrastructure, to reduce vulnerabilities. This means work on the interoperability of our information systems, where will be accelerating the work of the High Level Experts Group to produce an interim report and actions before Christmas. It also means developing a system of robust risk analysis, security research and the systematic cooperation between law enforcement agencies and the private sector.

During my hearing I was very clear about the need to ensure appropriate implementation of what we have already agreed. We have got to deliver what we agreed, however hard and occasionally unglamorous that may be. The Commission is ready to support national authorities with technical assistance, exchange of best practice and, in many cases, financially, but Member States need to do their part. The PNR Directive is a case in point. This is a key instrument in the fight against terrorism, with the transposition deadline of May 2018. Few Member States yet have in place the necessary infrastructure to handle the data. A number have plans and projects underway, but 11 Member States have yet to start work.

In other cases where the deadline for Member States’ transposition has already passed, the Commission will not hesitate to launch infringements – as was the case this September, when for the first time the Commission initiated infringement procedures for non-transposition of elements of the Prüm Network.

Finally, let me stress another recurring theme. We need to make full use of the existing instruments we have at our disposal. Our agencies need to be strengthened and their support should be better used. For example, after the Paris attacks, Europol assigned 60 officers to support the French and Belgian investigations in Taskforce Fraternité. Data provided to Europol by Belgium and France enabled it to come up with 800 intelligence leads and more than 1 600 leads on suspicious financial transactions. Eurojust also played a key role in the aftermath of these attacks in what were legally complex cross-border investigations, and the new Europol regulation that will enter into application in May 2017 offers us new opportunities that we should seize.

I realise I have spoken for too long, but as you can see, this is a broad range of work that we are reporting on, and initiating a monthly reporting cycle should allow us to be able to discuss specific issues in more depth in the future and ensure that all institutions have an updated picture on the state of implementation of these important initiatives. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to hearing your views.

Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his update.

Commissioner, I very much welcome your intention of giving us a monthly update. On the evaluation, I also very much appreciate your emphasis on the need for evaluation of the implementation, and indeed the PNR case demonstrates that. Although I personally voted against the directive, I think it is extremely silly to pass laws which are not then implemented. I also wonder where the rush came from, if now the Member States are not acting six months after the adoption. I think we should also get a bit more information about the – in total now – EUR 130 million which are being spent on PNR.

But we should not only evaluate the implementation but also the effectiveness. If you compare it to the war on drugs, that has failed dramatically. Is the war on terror any more successful? I do not know, because we have passed so many laws and spent so much money, and the threat levels seem to be going up, not down. We seem to get less of a grip on the phenomenon, not more.

We should also evaluate the impact on fundamental rights and the rule of law, as you have mentioned. But I would also like to see included in your monthly updates the need for democratic and judicial oversight and more transparency and accountability, because I think that is sorely lacking. While defending our democracy and rule of law against terrorist attacks, we seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So I really hope that you are going to focus more on that.

Three final remarks. First of all, on prevention: I also welcome your statements on that, because I think that so far we have done a terrible job on prevention. I think we have made matters worse by creating deep divisions in society.

Secondly, we all agree on the urgent need for more information-sharing. But, as I said in the previous debate, information-sharing is a lot more than just interconnectivity. That is the technical side of things, but we now need to actually share information, and not on a voluntary, ad hoc, random basis, but systematically.

Finally, in the report that this House adopted in 2011, we stressed already very heavily the need to invest a lot more in what they call HUMINT – human intelligence, people on the ground. I think that the situation in Belgium and the investigation that they did has shown that the real problem is insufficient capacity. So, rather than spending zillions on megalomaniac IT systems, we should be investing in people on the ground.

Josep-Maria Terricabras (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the EU has to ensure internal security and has to fight terrorism. This is undeniable, but in a democratic society this can only be done while keeping in mind the main goal of protecting and reinforcing civil liberties and the human rights of citizens. When we do not do so, we are falling into the trap set by terrorism, which plans to have us caught in fear, resentment and diminishing democracy. Has the EU really evaluated which of the security initiatives taken against terrorism really work and which do not? I am afraid this has not been done so far. It is urgent to do so. A lot has been said on this during this debate, but I would like to insist that we should only accept more security measures if they mean a better protection of freedom, not a disruption of it.

Kinga Gál (PPE). – Mr President, 82% of Europeans believe that the Union should act more decisively against terrorism, according to our Eurobarometer Survey published this July. There are still many challenges ahead of us. Information exchange has to be stepped up, interoperability of the existing databases must be ensured. It is important that all persons crossing the European Union’s external borders are checked against the relevant databases. In order to keep the Schengen system borderless, we have to prove to our citizens that we are in control of our external borders. More has to be done in order to prevent and fight radicalisation, which is due to failed integration, through the means of the Internet is occurring faster and faster. Security lies at the heart of the European project and there can be no freedom without security.

Julian King,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this first opportunity, following the publication of the first of this series of monthly reports, to have this debate. If, as one or two people have said, this were to become a regular feature in plenary, as far as the Commission is concerned that would be very welcome.

A number of detailed points have been raised in discussion. I am obviously not going to be able to respond to all of those now, but we have taken very careful note and, through this iterative process of reporting and debating, I hope that we will be able to come back and address all of the points that have been raised. I will also have an opportunity myself to go into a little bit of detail on some of these points with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) early in November.

As Mrs Fajon said, more than 80% of our citizens are looking for more reassurance from EU—level activity in support of our Member States on the security agenda. As Mr Albrecht said, people want to feel more secure and there are a range of things that we can do at EU level to help and support Member States. I am reassured that Mrs Hohlmeier thinks that we are starting to get some things done on terrorism, on cybercrime and on organised crime, as Mrs Ferrara underlined. We need to do what we have collectively agreed. I am in no doubt about that. As Mrs in 't Veld and Mr Deprez, among others, underlined, that is crucial not only because of the importance of the individual measures, but also to reassure people about the credibility of our work in this field.

I am also absolutely convinced that we need to focus on what works and that involves a critical assessment of what we have been doing. Mrs Joly and others underlined that. I take that very seriously. I gave a commitment during my appearance in front of the LIBE Committee that we would work on an evaluation of this policy area, and we will. I agree with Mrs Stevens, Mrs Gomes and others that we need to continue with an intelligent and sustained approach to prevention, as well as taking the fight to terrorism and serious criminality. In all of that I am completely committed to full respect for fundamental rights, because we have a clear objective. Our objective, as many of you have said, is to defend our open societies and that is to act grounded in the rule of law.

I will make two points in response to questions that have come up. On implementation and the particular case of the implementation of PNR underlined by Mrs Sippel and various others, we are not in infringement territory because the transposition date is Spring 2018, but we do need to work together with all the Member States to achieve the common shared objective of effective implementation by that date. To that end, I am going be producing an implementation roadmap in November, which will set out in concrete terms the steps that need to be taken and how we can work together to achieve them.

My last particular point has regard to a number of comments made this morning about the relationship between migration and terrorism. I want to agree one hundred percent with the last speaker, Mr López Aguilar. We should not conflate the challenges associated with migration, on the one hand, with terrorism and the problems it poses on the other. To do so is to play into the hands of Daesh.

that the implementation is extremely important and therefore the Slovak Presidency wants to assure you that we will not allow ourselves any complacency in this area. That is why we are organising an extraordinary, or additional, Interior Council on 18 November where we will have an exchange of views and try to generate momentum in the whole complexity of this area of security union.

Secondly, radicalisation is extremely important too; we will put it on the agenda of the Educational Council. Here in the area of education I think we need to make progress to face and fight radicalisation. I know also about the interests of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) in having an exchange on radicalisation.

Finally, we are making very good progress when it comes to the directive on combating terrorism, with a good prospect that we will close it towards the end of our Presidency.

President. – It is my pleasure to welcome the members of a delegation from the US Congress who have taken their seats in the diplomatic gallery.

(Applause)

The delegation is in Strasbourg to meet with their counterparts from the European Parliament with the proposal of deepening their knowledge and understanding of our legislative and institutional procedures. I wish the delegation well for the remainder of their stay in the European Union.

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE). – Mr President, I do not think it was clear to everybody whether we were voting on the third part of recital A or the final vote on the resolution. Can we take the vote again so that it is clear to everybody?

Michael Gahler (PPE). – Mr President, it is actually an oral amendment which is in line with the Council decisions. I will repeat, after paragraph 9: ‘Calls for swift processing in collaboration with third countries of transit and origin and of return for those who do not qualify for asylum and protection in the EU’. That is the oral amendment after paragraph 9.

(L'emendamento orale non è accolto)

Michael Gahler (PPE). – Mr President, then we have after paragraph 10: ‘Calls on key origin and transit countries for irregular migration to the EU to fully and effectively implement existing bilateral readmission agreements’. I hope at least ‘existing bilateral admission readmission agreements’ can be accepted.

(Brief comment by the President)

They are calling to disobey existing law. Let us be very clear: they call for disobeying existing legislation.

Tim Aker (EFDD),in writing. – UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non-legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

Martina Anderson, Lynn Boylan and Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL),in writing. – This report provides for the automated exchange of DNA data in Denmark. It calls for the unnecessary collection and sharing of personal data that is highly invasive, expensive and unwarranted in scope and nature. I therefore voted against this report.

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), in writing. ‒ I voted against this technically non-legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

Gerard Batten (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non-legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

Mercedes Bresso (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the decision to launch an automated exchange of DNA data with Denmark. The goal consists of facilitating cross-border cooperation especially with regard to the fight against terrorism and cross-border crime. I believe this decision will also strengthen the cross-border law-enforcement cooperation in the EU.

Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL), in writing. ‒ I voted against this report. This implementing Council decision follows from the 2008 Prüm Decision on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. The supply of personal data provided for under that Decision may not take place until the general provisions on data protection set out in that Decision. These include: (i) an evaluation report based on a questionnaire, (ii) an evaluation visit and (iii) a pilot run. Denmark has met these conditions. These two Council implementing Decisions authorise the automated exchange of DNA and dactyloscopic (fingerprints) data to and from Denmark. Sinn Fein has always voted against Prüm and its implementing decisions as it is based on a unilateral repressive and surveillance-based approach.

James Carver (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non-legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

David Casa (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the Report which sets out the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Denmark as a way of stepping up cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime.

Deirdre Clune (PPE), in writing. ‒ I supported the Report on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Denmark and noted no objections.

Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), in writing. ‒ The draft Council implementing Decision aims to authorise Denmark to receive and supply personal data for the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic (fingerprint) data under the Prüm Treaty.

Denmark has run a successful pilot project and fulfilled all the data protection provisions, and the Commission has evaluated the results and found Denmark ready to take part in Prüm.

Theresa Griffin (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the report. Denmark has run a successful pilot project and fulfilled all the data protection provisions, the Commission has evaluated the results and found Denmark ready to take part in Prüm.

Antanas Guoga (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the report. The Council stated that Denmark answered to the questionnaire prepared by the Council Working group regarding data protection and on DNA data exchange issues. After the evaluation report by the Council as well as the evaluation of Denmark’s systems on data protection and DNA data exchange, it came to the conclusion that Denmark is granted the access on DNA data exchange.

Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the Council Implementing decision to launch the automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Denmark. According to Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, the supply of personal data provided for under that Decision may not take place until the general provisions on data protection set out in that Decision are adhered to. Council Decision 2008/616/JHA on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA confirms that the above condition has been met with respect to automated data exchange on the basis of: (i) an evaluation report based on a questionnaire, (ii) an evaluation visit and (iii) a pilot run. Denmark completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on DNA data exchange. A successful pilot run was carried out by Denmark with the Netherlands. An evaluation visit also took place in Denmark. An overall evaluation report was presented in which the Council concluded, on 12 July 2016, that Denmark had fully implemented the general provisions on data protection. This implementing Decision aims to authorise Denmark to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Decision 2008/615/JHA as from the date of the entry into force of this Decision.

Brian Hayes (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour since I have no objections against it.

Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour. The initiative authorises Denmark to receive and supply personal data for the purposes of automated searching and comparison of DNA data under the Prüm Treaty, which establishes a legal framework to further develop cooperation among Member States in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal immigration.

Petr Ježek (ALDE), in writing. ‒ Launching of automated data exchange with regard to DNA in Denmark will contribute to more effective monitoring of movements within the European Union. It will authorise the state to receive and supply personal data and thus to help to prevent cross-border crime. With respect to current migration crisis and combating terrorism, I voted in favour of stepping up strengthening of EU’s cross-border cooperation and achieving better control over European Union’s territory.

Afzal Khan (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the report. Denmark has run a successful pilot project and fulfilled all the data protection provisions, the Commission has evaluated the results and found Denmark ready to take part in Prüm.

Stelios Kouloglou(GUE/NGL), in writing. ‒ This report is aimed at strengthening unilateral repressive practice set up by Prüm Convention, consistently opposed by my political group. I voted against since the quantity of data does not necessarily make policy implementation better.

Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE),in writing. – Unfortunately, brutal terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the EU has not been prepared to prevent the growing threat of cross border terrorism and crime. Therefore, in the aftermath of the attacks the EU has been actively trying to boost cross-border cooperation between its Member States. In this regard, it is very important to improve exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union for the purpose of detecting and investigating terrorism and terrorist activities. I warmly welcome automated data exchange with Denmark because this represents another step in combating cross-border terrorism and crime.

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D), in writing. ‒ The purpose of the proposal to launch the automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Denmark. Denmark had fully implemented the general provisions on data protection. I fully support this suggestion.

Fulvio Martusciello (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the Report on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Denmark. With the rise of terrorism and automated data exchange taking place over the last years in continental Europe, will be useful to have a database exchange, assisting in identifying potential dangerous people.

Roberta Metsola (PPE), in writing. ‒ I supported this resolution because I believe Member States’ individual law enforcement authorities require all the tools possible in order to increase the exchange of information and combat crime.

Victor Negrescu (S&D), in writing. ‒ I am in favour of this report concerning the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA in Denmark that will improve cross-border law enforcement cooperation in combating terrorism.

Margot Parker (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non-legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

Miroslav Poche (S&D), in writing. ‒ The draft Council implementing Decision aims to authorise Denmark to receive and supply personal data for the purposes of automated searching and comparison of DNA data under the Prüm Treaty. I am happy to announce that Denmark has run a successful pilot project and fulfilled all the data protection provisions, Commission has evaluated the results and found Denmark ready to take part in Prüm. With the successful pilot and no controversial issues within Parliament, I voted in favour of the proposal.

Julia Reid (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non-legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

Pavel Telička (ALDE), in writing. ‒ EU automated data exchange relating to DNA is used to step-up cross border cooperation, particularly in the combat against terrorism and cross-border crime. I voted in favour of the automated data exchange with regard to DNA in Denmark because it will allow for the searching and comparison of DNA data, authorising Denmark to receive and supply personal data from other EU participants. This effort will render Europe better equipped to tackle trans-border crime and terrorism and with better cooperation, will render Europe safer and more competent.

Ivo Vajgl (ALDE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the Report on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Denmark. According to Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA, the supply of personal data provided for under that Decision may not take place until the general provisions on data protection have been implemented in the national law of the territories of the Member States involved in such supply. The verification that the above condition has been met with respect to automated data exchange is to be done on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire, an evaluation visit and a pilot run. An evaluation visit has taken place in Denmark and a report on the evaluation visit has been produced by the Dutch evaluation team and forwarded to the relevant Council Working Group. The Council concluded that Denmark had fully implemented the general provisions on data protection. Therefore, Denmark should be entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of Decision 2008/615/JHA.

Tim Aker (EFDD),in writing. – UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non—legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

Martina Anderson, Lynn Boylan and Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL),in writing. – This report provides for the automated exchange of dactyloscopic (fingerprint) data in Denmark. It calls for the unnecessary collection and sharing of personal data that is highly invasive, expensive and unwarranted in scope and nature. We therefore voted against this report.

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), in writing. ‒ I voted against this technically non-legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

Gerard Batten (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

Mercedes Bresso (S&D), in writing. ‒ I decided to support this resolution because it allows Denmark to exchange dactyloscopic data with the other EU Member States in order to facilitate cross-border judicial cooperation. I strongly believe this resolution, together with the one on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data, will improve the EU capacity to tackle terrorism and cross-border crime.

Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL), in writing. ‒ This implementing Council decisions follow from the 2008 Prüm Decision on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. The supply of personal data provided for under that Decision may not take place until the general provisions on data protection set out in that Decision. These include: (i) an evaluation report based on a questionnaire, (ii) an evaluation visit and (iii) a pilot run. Denmark has met these conditions. These two Council implementing Decisions authorise the automated exchange of DNA and dactyloscopic (fingerprints) data to and from Denmark. Sinn Fein has always voted against Prüm and its implementing decisions as it is based on a unilateral repressive and surveillance-based approach.

James Carver (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

David Casa (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the Report in agreement with the Council position to the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Denmark as a way of improving security in Europe and of stepping up cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime.

Deirdre Clune (PPE), in writing. ‒ I supported the Report on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Denmark and noted no objections.

Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), in writing. ‒ The draft Council implementing Decision aims to authorise Denmark to receive and supply personal data for the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic (fingerprint) data under the Prüm Treaty. Denmark has run a successful pilot project and fulfilled all the data protection provisions, Commission has evaluated the results and found Denmark ready to take part in Prüm. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

Theresa Griffin (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the report. Denmark has run a successful pilot project and fulfilled all the data protection provisions, the Commission has evaluated the results and found Denmark ready to take part in Prüm.

Antanas Guoga (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the report. After the revision of results submitted by Denmark for the Council, it was concluded that Denmark fulfilled all necessary criteria and is granted a permission regarding automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data.

Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. ‒ I supported this Council implementing decision to launch the automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Denmark. According to Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, the supply of personal data provided for under that Decision may not take place until the general provisions on data protection set out in that Decision. Council Decision 2008/616/JHA on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA confirms that the above conditions have been met with respect to automated data exchange on the basis of: (i) an evaluation report based on a questionnaire, (ii) an evaluation visit and (iii) a pilot run. Denmark completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on dactyloscopic data exchange. A successful pilot run has been carried out by Denmark with Germany. An evaluation visit also took place in Denmark. An overall evaluation report was presented in which the Council concluded that Denmark had fully implemented the general provisions on data protection. This draft Council implementing Decision aims, for the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic data, to authorise Denmark to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Decision 2008/615/JHA as from the date of the entry into force of this decision.

Brian Hayes (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour since I have no objections against it.

Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. ‒ The initiative authorises Denmark to receive and supply personal data for the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic (fingerprint) data under the Prüm Treaty, which establishes a legal framework to further develop cooperation among Member States in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal immigration.

Afzal Khan (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the report. Denmark has run a successful pilot project and fulfilled all the data protection provisions, the Commission has evaluated the results and found Denmark ready to take part in Prüm.

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D), in writing. ‒ The purpose of the proposal to launch the automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Denmark. A successful pilot run has been carried out by Denmark with Germany. I support this proposal.

Fulvio Martusciello (PPE), per iscritto. ‒ I voted in favour of the Report on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Denmark. This proposal is important to enhance cross-border cooperation in the fight against terrorism and cross-border crime.

Roberta Metsola (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of this resolution which allows Denmark to both provide and receive dactyloscopic data for use in criminal investigations as Denmark has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection.

Victor Negrescu (S&D), in writing. ‒ I am in favour of this report concerning the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic in Denmark that will improve cross-border law enforcement cooperation in combating terrorism.

Margot Parker (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

Miroslav Poche (S&D), in writing. ‒ The draft Council Implementing Decision aims to authorise Denmark to receive and supply personal data for the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic, otherwise known as fingerprint, data under the Prüm Treaty. I am again happy to announce that Denmark has run a successful pilot project and fulfilled all the data protection provisions, and the Commission has evaluated the results and found Denmark ready to take part in Prüm. So, with the successful pilot and no controversial issues within Parliament, I voted in favour of the proposal.

Julia Reid (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP MEPs voted against this technically non legislative consultation. UKIP believe that agreements on data exchange should be made on a bilateral basis by sovereign nations.

Pavel Telička (ALDE), in writing. ‒ In the aim of stepping-up cross border cooperation, particularly in the combat against terrorism and cross-border crime, the automated exchange of data, particularly regarding dactyloscopic data is essential. I voted in favour of the automated exchange of dactyloscopic data, or fingerprints in Denmark because it will allow for the searching and comparison of fingerprint data among participating states, authorising Denmark to receive and supply personal data from other EU participants. This effort will render Europe better equipped to tackle trans-border crime and terrorism.

Ivo Vajgl (ALDE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the report on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Denmark. According to Article 25(2) of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA, the supply of personal data provided for under the Decision may not take place until the provisions on data protection set out in Chapter 6 of the Decision have been implemented in the national law of the territories of the Member States involved in such supply. The Council must unanimously decide whether this condition has been met. Denmark has completed the questionnaire on data protection and the questionnaire on dactyloscopic data exchange. I voted in favour because, according to the Council, for the purposes of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data, Denmark has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615/JHA.

Tim Aker (EFDD),in writing. – UKIP MEPs have voted against giving consent to this legislative agreement. UKIP do not support the EU making agreements with third countries, particularly when this concerns the issue of migration.

Martina Anderson, Lynn Boylan and Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL),in writing. – This recommendation is to allow a waiver of visas for holders of diplomatic passports from China, allowing them to stay in the EU for short periods without a visa.

While these short-term visa waivers can be useful, due to the serious questions raised about China’s human rights record, we voted to abstain.

It should be noted that these waivers would only apply to diplomatic passport holders, so they will not affect the ability for the likes of NGOs to travel visa free.

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), in writing. ‒ I have voted against giving consent to this legislative agreement. UKIP do not support the EU making agreements with third countries, particularly when this concerns the issue of migration.

Gerard Batten (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP MEPs have voted against giving consent to this legislative agreement. UKIP do not support the EU making agreements with third countries, particularly when this concerns the issue of migration.

Mercedes Bresso (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of this resolution supporting the results of the negotiation of the agreement between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China regarding the short-stay visa waiver for holders of diplomatic passports. This decision has been taken in order to facilitate the travel of diplomats and strengthen the development of friendly relations between the EU and China.